tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-41516021195743835862024-03-21T09:51:10.870-07:00The Economics of MoviesAn Austrian-School PerspectiveMr. Christopherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13553466109570555839noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4151602119574383586.post-4234155191491119792011-08-01T21:36:00.000-07:002011-08-01T21:46:56.578-07:00Braveheart: Freedom, My ArseI wish I could shoot lightning bolts of freedom out of my arse. I'd wear a cape and call my self Red White and <a href="http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=blue%20dart">Blue Dart</a>.<br />
<br />
Freedom isn't something you can spread with a gun. It's an idea that can energize our actions. Men are free the moment they decide to be. You don't have to ask permission to get it.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Braveheart-Special-Collectors-Mel-Gibson/dp/B000W8OM5Y?ie=UTF8&tag=west.christopher.lynn&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">Braveheart</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=west.christopher.lynn&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=B000W8OM5Y" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important;" width="1" /> blew my freaking teenage mind. The carnage was all a teenage boy could hope for, but the message of freedom was something so foreign, although the word "freedom" vomits forth from the lips of politicians like the magic honey of re-election.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lefi3cD1eI1qdj4upo1_500.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="180" src="http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lefi3cD1eI1qdj4upo1_500.gif" width="320" /></a></div><br />
Just before the scene where Wallace says "<a href="http://youtu.be/WLrrBs8JBQo?t=38s">they can take our lives, but they can never take OUR FREEDOM,</a>" a couple of the fighters talk about deserting. Putting away their weapons and going home. That, to me, is freedom. The ability to say "hell no." To be able to live your life, to use your time and resources as you see fit.<br />
<br />
Imagine a soldier today, throwing down his gun, and saying, "<a href="http://www.aavw.org/protest/homepage_ali.html">I ain't got no quarrel with the Muslims. I'm going home</a>." <br />
<br />
It's happened. "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desertion#Absence_without_leave">Since 2000, about 40,000 troops from all branches of the military have deserted</a>"<br />
<br />
All of our wars that have supposedly "<a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/woodrowwilson">made the world safe for democracy</a>" have at the same time made it less free. Not only has<a href="http://libertydefined.org/issue/8"> the U.S. overthrown/assassinated democratically-elected leaders, rigged elections, and propped up dictators of the worst sort</a>; but the American people have become <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheeple">sheeple</a>. We don't want freedom. We want wealth. And we're willing to take it by <a href="http://economics.about.com/od/warandtheeconomy/a/warsandeconomy_2.htm">bombing other countries</a>, and taxing the justly rich.<br />
<br />
It's time we start living like that great American—Henry David Thoreau. I don't mean we need to live in woods. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thoreau#Civil_Disobedience_and_the_Walden_years:_1845.E2.80.931849">Thoreau went to jail for refusing to pay his taxes</a>. He refused to pay for an unjust war. We need to join him. We need to say "hell no, you can't use my money to bomb Muslims. I ain't go no quarrel with them."<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-wJZHLWyIBZY/Tjd-Vgt3YxI/AAAAAAAAAC0/QtXpzMrm9Ds/s1600/Thoreau+Heart.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-wJZHLWyIBZY/Tjd-Vgt3YxI/AAAAAAAAAC0/QtXpzMrm9Ds/s320/Thoreau+Heart.jpg" width="257" /></a></div><br />
I am not brave enough to go to prison. But I will not be stand idly by while neocons wage war in the name of my country. Sometimes, the bravest are those who refuse to fight.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4151602119574383586.post-54113007386790487662011-07-29T11:25:00.000-07:002011-07-29T21:39:05.523-07:00Are The Smurfs Communists?From <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jul/27/sure-they-look-blue-but-are-the-smurfs-closet-reds/">The Washington Times</a>—<br />
Pop quiz: Who uttered the famous maxim, “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs?”<br />
<br />
A) Karl Marx<br />
<br />
B) Papa Smurf<br />
<br />
C) Both A and B<br />
<br />
The correct answer is “C”<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Qra0hlO6hZk" width="425"></iframe><br />
The video was made by a highschooler, and he keeps saying "there were no economics." What he means is "there was no monetary exchange." Economics, like physics, cannot be abolished. Market forces work even in markets that are not free.<br />
<br />
Wikipedia refers to it as "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Smurfs#Totalitarian_controversy">The Smurfs Totalitarian Controversy</a>."<br />
<br />
Communism, like other utopian ideas, work much better as cartoons.Mr. Christopherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13553466109570555839noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4151602119574383586.post-50432837789333388122011-07-13T12:29:00.000-07:002011-07-13T12:29:31.789-07:003D is a stupid fadTired of watching movies in 3D? Try these <a href="http://www.amazon.com/2D-Glasses-2D-glasses/dp/B004X4L1UC?ie=UTF8&tag=west.christopher.lynn&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">2D glasses</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=west.christopher.lynn&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=B004X4L1UC" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important;" width="1" />, which convert 3D movies into 2D.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.thinkgeek.com/images/products/other/e9b4_2-D_glasses_diagram_embed.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.thinkgeek.com/images/products/other/e9b4_2-D_glasses_diagram_embed.jpg" /></a></div><br />
This video nails the idea that 3D cannot be taken seriously.<br />
<object height="390" width="640"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/CcnPXpUFj4w&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/CcnPXpUFj4w&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></embed></object>Mr. Christopherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13553466109570555839noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4151602119574383586.post-47734222311463328662011-07-07T20:52:00.000-07:002011-07-08T20:39:24.529-07:00Inception: The Myth of Monopoly<b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Inception-Two-Disc-Blu-ray-Leonardo-DiCaprio/dp/B002ZG981E?ie=UTF8&tag=west.christopher.lynn&link_code=bil&camp=213689&creative=392969" imageanchor="1" target="_blank"><img alt="Inception (Two-Disc Edition) [Blu-ray]" src="http://ws.amazon.com/widgets/q?MarketPlace=US&ServiceVersion=20070822&ID=AsinImage&WS=1&Format=_SL160_&ASIN=B002ZG981E&tag=west.christopher.lynn" /></a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=west.christopher.lynn&l=bil&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=B002ZG981E" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important;" width="1" /></b><br />
<b>You Are The Mark</b><br />
There is an idea in the movie <i><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Inception-Two-Disc-Blu-ray-Leonardo-DiCaprio/dp/B002ZG981E?ie=UTF8&tag=west.christopher.lynn&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">Inception</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=west.christopher.lynn&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=B002ZG981E" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important;" width="1" /></i> that you probably didn't even notice. It probably seemed like a familiar idea, one that you had heard before. It seemed so natural, so logical, as if you'd always believed it.<br />
<br />
A foreign, nonsensical idea has been planted in your mind, so deeply, that you have never thought to question it.<br />
<br />
But it was a lie. A foreign idea, put gently into your brain so that you would unquestioningly accept it.<br />
<br />
Here's the movie's premise: Mr. Saito pays Dom Cobb to break up Robert Fischer's monopolistic company. <br />
<br />
Did you notice it? Or did it sneak past again?<br />
<br />
<b>The Dream</b><br />
This idea that <i>Inception</i> strengthened, was planted in your brain years ago, when you weren't paying attention. Sometime while you waited for the bell to ring for recess, and you wondered if that cute girl in the desk a row away had looked at you first, or had caught you staring, and you held your bladder to see which would go off sooner: your bladder or the bell. An idea was implanted.<br />
<br />
Whether or not you made it to the bathroom before you wet your pants, you were probably tested on this idea, to strengthen its grip on your mind.<br />
<br />
You have always thought that monopoly meant a big, greedy, business that took too much of the market share. You thought that anti-trust legislation had been passed to protect us from these evil monopolies.<br />
<br />
But until the 20th century, a monopoly was considered a governmental interference on the free-market. That is, until government took over education.<br />
<br />
Government says its schools exist so that everyone, even the poor, can get an education. Why, then, are middle-class kids forced to go to government schools? Why is <a href="http://www2.ed.gov/pubs/Truancy/index.html">truancy treated as a crime</a> that requires police involvement? <b>Government performs inception in its schools. </b> They fill young children's minds with myths about governmental history that borders on religious indoctrination. These ideas make our children "good" citizens. Not citizens who ask critical questions, but citizens who walk through life like it's a dream, and don't wake up and start demanding answers.<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjcMTyd_T3_68GhBuDAjBX2pmxI5UxAlFgy_5yDgYd3xiipONNIErBHJwlJ5GHWW8X1TkPaJqZ2S5DqkSgLN2kIOwkSfQqbkSOKJR7cJdQ1QRhICY1azZN9rdCd_u4cYBqg0pA8leHh2pM/s1600/Screen+shot+2010-07-23+at+10.42.25+AM.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="132" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjcMTyd_T3_68GhBuDAjBX2pmxI5UxAlFgy_5yDgYd3xiipONNIErBHJwlJ5GHWW8X1TkPaJqZ2S5DqkSgLN2kIOwkSfQqbkSOKJR7cJdQ1QRhICY1azZN9rdCd_u4cYBqg0pA8leHh2pM/s320/Screen+shot+2010-07-23+at+10.42.25+AM.png" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Reality sucks!</td></tr>
</tbody></table><b>The Reality</b><br />
Monopolies have always been created by government. King George III's two-cent tax on tea was levied to raise revenue for the Crown, through its monopoly, the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Company#Forming_a_complete_monopoly">East India Company</a>.<br />
<br />
Our government followed the King's example, by giving monopolies to the Post Office, AT&T, the Federal Reserve, and so on. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysander_Spooner">Lysander Spooner</a>, a businessman who was audacious enough to open a postal service that competed with the Post Office, brought down the Post Office's prices by 70% through competition. The government <a href="http://www.lysanderspooner.org/STAMP2.htm">created a law to smash Spooner's business</a>.<br />
<br />
The government does not foster efficiency, lower prices, or create better products. The government crushes entrepreneurs, creates monopolies, and increases prices. Always.<br />
<br />
We should, therefore, not be surprised that anti-monopoly legislation has always been used as a weapon to destroy efficient, low-cost businesses, in favor of inefficient, high-cost businesses. The company that cannot compete with better products and lower prices, lobbies the government to crush its competitor, who "unfairly" provides a superior product at a lower cost.<br />
<br />
This is why the<a href="http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/target-google.html"> FEC recently targeted Google</a>. Google did not shoot anyone, or burn down any buildings to get a huge share of the market. Google virtually created the market it now dominates. It provides the best service, at the lowest cost (free). And for that, it will be punished.<br />
<br />
Big companies are not monopolies. They are rich, but frightened, and ready to crumble with the next innovation that they are too slow to adopt.<br />
<br />
In a free market, the largest corporations are never safe. If they do not keep prices low, and innovate, some smaller company will come out with a better, or cheaper product, and put the big dog out of business. These big companies know this, and so they lobby Congress to pass laws and regulations that make it too expensive for small companies to enter their field.<br />
<br />
So big companies can only become monopolies with the help of the government. In a free-market, their market share is a free-for-all.<br />
<br />
<b>Your Totem</b><br />
Dom Cobb in the movie <i><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Inception-Two-Disc-Blu-ray-Leonardo-DiCaprio/dp/B002ZG981E?ie=UTF8&tag=west.christopher.lynn&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">Inception</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=west.christopher.lynn&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=B002ZG981E" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important;" width="1" /></i> claims to be able to create mental defenses to protect against mind crimes. We, too, can take this movie, which nonchalantly strengthens the idea of non-governmental monopoly, and use it against itself.<br />
<br />
<i>Inception</i> is a perfect analogy for how government crushes competition, and screws the consumer, for its lobbyists.<br />
<br />
Mr. Saito paid Dom Cobb to break up Robert Fischer's company. In plain English, Mr. Saito (a failing business) paid (lobbied) Dom Cobb (the government) to break up (file anti-trust suits) against Robert Fischer (Google, or another great company).<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-bottom: 0.5em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; padding-bottom: 6px; padding-left: 6px; padding-right: 6px; padding-top: 6px; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://wgtccdn.wegotthiscovered.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/281.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="132" src="http://wgtccdn.wegotthiscovered.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/281.jpg" style="cursor: move;" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="font-size: 13px; padding-top: 4px; text-align: center;">I'm the government. And I'm here to help.</td></tr>
</tbody></table><br />
Remember that, and your mental alarms will always go off when the Dom Cobbs of the world try to "protect" you against monopoly.<br />
<br />
Further reading:<br />
<i><a href="http://mises.org/daily/436">Anti-Trust, Anti-Truth</a> </i>by Thomas J. DiLorenzo<br />
<i><a href="http://mises.org/rothbard/mes/chap10a.asp">Monopoly and Competition</a> </i>by Murray N. Rothbard<br />
<i><a href="http://mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/RAE9_2_3.pdf">Myth of Natural Monopoly</a></i> by Thomas J. DiLorenzo<br />
<i><a href="http://mises.org/daily/621">Fear of Monopoly</a></i> by Brad Edmonds<br />
<i><a href="http://mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/Q12_1.pdf">Monopoly Prices</a></i> by Ludwig von MisesMr. Christopherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13553466109570555839noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4151602119574383586.post-66991684092431707292011-05-01T23:00:00.000-07:002011-07-07T20:53:23.119-07:00Star Trek: Money is the root of freedom and prosperity<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Star-Trek-Three-Disc-Blu-ray-Chris/dp/B001AVCFK6?ie=UTF8&tag=west.christopher.lynn&link_code=bil&camp=213689&creative=392969" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" target="_blank"><img alt="Star Trek (Three-Disc Edition) [Blu-ray]" src="http://ws.amazon.com/widgets/q?MarketPlace=US&ServiceVersion=20070822&ID=AsinImage&WS=1&Format=_SL160_&ASIN=B001AVCFK6&tag=west.christopher.lynn" /></a>This post is going to bring on the wrath of the nerds, but I welcome their feedback:<br />
<br />
<img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=west.christopher.lynn&l=bil&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=B001AVCFK6" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important;" width="1" />Money has long been <a href="http://lds.org/scriptures/nt/1-tim/6.10?lang=eng#9">blamed</a> for all the ills of the world. But we should thank God for money. Civilization and freedom are built on money. The humans in Star Trek do not use money. This topic has been covered by <a href="http://www.ayn-rand.info/showcontent.aspx?ct=2185&printer=True">others</a>, but I'd like to add my arguments to the necessity of money and the problem of scarcity.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_Roddenberry">Gene Roddenberry</a>, the creator of the show, decided that he did not want money in his universe. Aside from the headache this has created for staff-writers, it also illustrates the point that money will not go away without severe consequences—unless the creator of the universe abolishes it. <br />
<iframe frameborder="no" height="270" scrolling="no" src="http://www.theonion.com/video_embed/?id=14333" width="480"></iframe><br />
<a href="http://www.theonion.com/video/trekkies-bash-new-star-trek-film-as-fun-watchable,14333/" target="_blank" title="Trekkies Bash New Star Trek Film As 'Fun, Watchable'">Trekkies Bash New Star Trek Film As 'Fun, Watchable'</a><br />
<b><u><br />
</u></b><br />
<b><u>Money Is Good</u></b><br />
With money, any person can trade goods or services with any other person within the country. When money was gold-based, people were <a href="http://mises.org/money/4s1.asp">free to travel anywhere in the world and trade with anyone</a> because gold is demanded everywhere. Dictators understand this, which is why money is one of the first things to go under a tyranny (see <a href="http://mises.org/daily/4492/media.aspx?action=author&ID=1581">Khmer Rouge</a>). Central planners don’t want pesky individuals messing with their grand designs.<br />
<br />
Money makes up one-half of every transaction. When it is abolished, transactions can only take place under a clunky barter system, which cannot escape the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coincidence_of_wants">coincidence of wants</a>. All other economic decisions are made by the central planners. The U.S. government has not outlawed money, but they<a href="http://mises.org/rothbard/genuine.asp"> got rid of the gold standard</a>, restricting Americans to trade within the U.S. And they have created a monopoly over money (outlawing competition), thus effectively taking control of 50% of the economy (they have actually delegated this power to the <a href="http://www.amazon.com/End-Fed-Ron-Paul/dp/0446549177?ie=UTF8&tag=west.christopher.lynn&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">Federal Reserve</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=west.christopher.lynn&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=0446549177" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important;" width="1" />, which is a private corporation that has no accountability to the people).<br />
<br />
Money <a href="http://mises.org/econcalc/ch3.asp">makes economic calculation possible</a> through the price mechanism. Prices are determined by supply and demand. High prices tell producers that people want the good, so they should dedicate scarce resources to it. Low prices tell them to use their productive energies in other endeavors. Prices help consumers budget, so individuals can calculate the best way to stay out of poverty, and save their way to prosperity.<br />
<br />
Money and the price system made <a href="http://www.amazon.com/How-Capitalism-Saved-America-Pilgrims/dp/1400083311?ie=UTF8&tag=west.christopher.lynn&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">America the freest, most prosperous country in the world</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=west.christopher.lynn&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=1400083311" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important;" width="1" /> (a position that is eroding in self-destruction). This came about by the division of labor and free exchange made possible by money and a free market. The destruction of money and the price system resulted in the collapse of the Soviet Union and other communist countries.<br />
<br />
<b>Abolishing money would not create prosperity and equality, it would simply destroy the price system</b>, making it impossible for individuals or governments to figure out whether they were conserving resources or wasting them<b>.</b> Star Trek could accomplish this if it either made everything in infinite supply, or reduced demand for all goods.<br />
<br />
<b><u>Endless Supply = No Money</u></b><br />
On the supply side, Star Trek introduces technology that could arguably limit the need for money. Replicators “<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replicator_(Star_Trek)">can create any inanimate matter, as long as the desired molecular structure is on file</a>” at virtually no cost, “<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replicator_(Star_Trek)">but it cannot create antimatter, dilithium, latinum, or a living organism of any kind</a>.” A replicator could conceivably replicate itself, making it possible for everyone to have one. Then each individual could replicate almost everything they need. Because prices are determined by supply and demand, the price of all replicable goods would be reduced to zero.<br />
<br />
Non-replicable goods would still have a cost. These items could be bartered for, but again we run into the need for a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coincidence_of_wants">coincidence of wants</a>, which would make money convenient.<br />
<br />
<b><u>No Demand = No Money</u></b><br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">In Star Trek, humans have "evolved" into these altruistic beings, so that they no longer desire personal gain. This is reminiscent of Marx's <a href="http://www.jstor.org/pss/1186949">new socialist man</a>, who would work for the good of the collective. These "good" humans are contrasted with Ferengis, who are portrayed as backward and greedy race, and appear to be a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferengi#Allegations_of_parodying_Judaism">caricature of Jews</a>. </div><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-bottom: 0.5em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; padding-bottom: 6px; padding-left: 6px; padding-right: 6px; padding-top: 6px; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhEnaRYfqvVbMuklsqPqZsf43cshuYRpagoq5LsXTqVjVvXMHoiurJg1KwjhtigwsRw2-3ikWNsja1bxG78GuNY3UMMlBUMddpq-p7Njbz87ZwC-5zSTbDzEeRxNkgb_UuXjsYczPfDouo/s1600/Ferengi+Jew.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="312" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhEnaRYfqvVbMuklsqPqZsf43cshuYRpagoq5LsXTqVjVvXMHoiurJg1KwjhtigwsRw2-3ikWNsja1bxG78GuNY3UMMlBUMddpq-p7Njbz87ZwC-5zSTbDzEeRxNkgb_UuXjsYczPfDouo/s400/Ferengi+Jew.jpg" style="cursor: move;" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="font-size: 13px; padding-top: 4px; text-align: center;">Prominent ears and nose. Lust for money. Just a coincidence.</td></tr>
</tbody></table><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">If humans no longer have personal needs, there is no longer individual demand, only the collective good. Thus a centralized ruling body can decide what is best for society without anyone grumbling about their lower standard of living (for government monopolies by nature destroy wealth). But as long as humans are mortal, they have to deal with the problem of scarcity (though lobotomies and brainwashing in combination might convince citizens of the Federation to believe otherwise). Self-preservation may be selfish, but evolving away from it seems like an evolutionary dead end.</div><br />
<b><u><span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; font-weight: normal;"><b><u>The Incentive Problem</u></b></span></u></b><br />
Even with replicators, time would still be scarce. Humans have about 100 years of life. Time and life cannot be replicated. It would be extremely difficult to incentivise an individual to work if he could easily replicate anything he needed. Most of us work to get money, so we can buy the things we need. A replicator would nullify most of our money needs, and with it our incentive to work.<br />
<br />
Holodecks would virtually nullify the need for an entertainment industry. Combined with a replicator, almost every conceivable need can be met without any work, and therefore without any cost, or need for money.<br />
<br />
It is difficult to dispute that, in the real Star Trek future, all thirty-year-old males may well be living in their mothers' basements, enjoying an endless orgy in their holodecks. If you dispute this, consider how many thirty-year-olds are at this moment living in their mothers' basements so they can play MMOs and watch Star Trek. Now imagine what would happen to those young men if they could bang a virtual Uhura three times a day. If they ever needed a bathroom break, they could just take a dump in their replicator and turn it into a bologna sandwich.<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh9CKB1T6BeXOhFpgrEKUx-WkLNdyndip4W_MNaLqzOtYr7y_iDy8mJPpsc1z9xkvHiUT1C1nYVb3jB7B1TvK-8LtGJN1gAkdBFzyRye5nkngQ8mk9JxQSX9gOZbJ00YRJ4M5OtBrILpnc/s1600/HoloDeck.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh9CKB1T6BeXOhFpgrEKUx-WkLNdyndip4W_MNaLqzOtYr7y_iDy8mJPpsc1z9xkvHiUT1C1nYVb3jB7B1TvK-8LtGJN1gAkdBFzyRye5nkngQ8mk9JxQSX9gOZbJ00YRJ4M5OtBrILpnc/s400/HoloDeck.jpg" width="256" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Hi mom!</td></tr>
</tbody></table>Who’s going to get an engineering degree, or risk their lives exploring deep space in these circumstances? If you only got 100 years, why risk dying this year when you got an Uhura waiting in your mom’s basement? In this case, it appears Star Trek makes an exception for human replication to mass produce <a href="http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2008/04/star-trek-red-s/">red shirts</a>.<br />
<br />
<b><u>A Possible Currency</u></b><br />
A solution may come from the travel industry. It appears that instantaneous travel is still impossible in Star Trek. They still have to explore at the snail-pace of warp speed. Couple this with the inability to replicate dilithium, and you have yourself a scarce commodity that could be used as the basis for money.<br />
<br />
People could trade dilithium certificates for goods and services that could not be replicated. The luxury of travel could keep peaceful trade necessary.<br />
<br />
<b><u>Trade = Peace</u></b><br />
Trade engenders peace. If you don’t know how to make bread, you have an incentive not to kill your baker. On a larger scale, nations that take advantage of comparative advantage by trading with other nations become richer, meaning they enjoy a higher standard of living. On this scale, economic incentives help prevent war. It doesn’t make sense to bomb Japan if you drive a Honda, or Finland if you use a Nokia.<br />
<br />
A self-sufficient man who has no need for others has no economic incentive not to kill. He has moral incentives, true, but economic incentives are important. <a href="http://mises.org/daily/2949">Germany, for example</a>, tried to copy the self-sufficiency of the U.S. so that it could wage unrestricted war. By cutting off trade with other countries, Germany impoverished itself, i.e., it lowered the standard of living of its citizens.<br />
<br />
An immoral person with a replicator and a holodeck may decide that it’s more fun to kill and rape real people rather than holo-people. Or, the Federation may decide that Ferengis are corrupting the youth with their philosophy of greed, and wage a war of extermination upon them. There would be little economic incentive to restrict violent impulses.<br />
<br />
<b><u>Heaven By Edict</u></b><br />
Let’s go back to scarcity. What if we could get rid of every scarcity? If there were no death, no time limits, no pain, no hunger or need to eat, and unlimited space, we would not need money. We would also be in heaven. As long as we can die, there will be a need for money and trade.<br />
<br />
When people want to abolish money, what they really want is unlimited prosperity. They want heaven, the garden of Eden, the abolishment of death, hunger, and suffering. But these things do not come about by act of congress, or the dictates of a tyrant. We strive toward them everyday with product innovations that come about in a competitive free market. One day we may all really get replicators and holodecks, but such a blissful future will only be possible with the help of money, and the beneficial exchanges made possible by it.<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/bA-wL6ymkIY" width="560"></iframe><br />
Listen to <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQrDNRm6qKk">another Trek song</a> by Jonathan MannMr. Christopherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13553466109570555839noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4151602119574383586.post-513298560153132002011-04-25T21:23:00.000-07:002011-07-07T20:53:52.704-07:00How to Train Your Dragon: The War State<div class="MsoNormal">(Spoiler Alert)</div><div class="MsoNormal"><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Train-Your-Dragon-Single-Disc/dp/B002ZG97YM?ie=UTF8&tag=west.christopher.lynn&link_code=bil&camp=213689&creative=392969" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" target="_blank"><img alt="How to Train Your Dragon (Single Disc Edition)" src="http://ws.amazon.com/widgets/q?MarketPlace=US&ServiceVersion=20070822&ID=AsinImage&WS=1&Format=_SL160_&ASIN=B002ZG97YM&tag=west.christopher.lynn" /></a>What does a giant dragon-eating dragon have to do with the war in Iraq? What can a cartoon teach us <img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=west.christopher.lynn&l=bil&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=B002ZG97YM" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; margin: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px !important; padding-left: 0px !important; padding-right: 0px !important; padding-top: 0px !important;" width="1" />about the dangers giving up freedom for security during a time of war? If the cartoon is <i><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Train-Your-Dragon-Single-Disc/dp/B002ZG97YM?ie=UTF8&tag=west.christopher.lynn&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">How To Train Your Dragon</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=west.christopher.lynn&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=B002ZG97YM" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; margin: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px !important; padding-left: 0px !important; padding-right: 0px !important; padding-top: 0px !important;" width="1" /></i><span style="font-style: normal;">, quite a bit. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">The movie begins with a war state (i.e. a society that centrally plans its economy to more effectively wage war) and ends with a free state (based on voluntary trade). This dichotomy realistically represents the inherent contradiction between war and freedom, and between war and prosperity.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
<strong><u>Viking Economy</u></strong><br />
Viking children in the movie are raised from youth to be soldiers, similar to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sparta#Life_in_Classical_Sparta">what the ancient Spartans practiced</a>. In Sparta, children born with birth defects were tossed headfirst into a chasm. While the Viking society does not go to this extent, both operate under the same assumption that the safety of the collective is more important than the liberty of the individual. The lives of Viking children are highly regimented, and straying from the status quo is discouraged.<br />
<br />
The cradle-to-grave control of the children's lives demonstrates that Viking economy was highly centralized. Many war states tend to push for more and more control of the economy, even though centrally planned states have always lost in wars against economically free states. Free states win, because a laissez-faire economy is able to respond much more quickly to changes in demand, with higher-quality and more affordable goods—even if the demand is for war goods—than a centrally planned economy. Each individual knows what he wants better than anyone else, even so three-hundred-million people are better able at making economic decisions that affect themselves better than a single president, or a small group of intellectuals.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">The desire for centralized control, in the face of its inefficiency, may be attributed to the <a href="http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=define%3A+hubris">hubris</a> of the state’s leader. A person who thinks he is wise enough to sacrifice another man’s life for the sake of the collective will have no qualms appropriating a business. To the warmongers, businessmen, like soldiers, are just more fodder for the cause. The economy, instead of being a myriad of individuals benefiting from an incalculable volume of voluntary transactions, becomes enlisted—another group of grunts following orders. Instead of being motivated by personal prosperity, every individual is coerced with the threat of death from abroad or punishment (including death) from home.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
<strong><u>War Propaganda</u></strong><br />
<a href="http://images2.fanpop.com/image/photos/13800000/Toothless-and-Hiccup-read-a-book-how-to-train-your-dragon-13804226-1768-990.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="178" src="http://images2.fanpop.com/image/photos/13800000/Toothless-and-Hiccup-read-a-book-how-to-train-your-dragon-13804226-1768-990.jpg" width="320" /></a>The enemy must be <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dehumanization#Nations_and_governments">dehumanized </a>before rational people can become convinced to kill. Thus any interaction with the enemy is forbidden, and befriending the enemy is labeled treason. The state publishes propaganda to convince the people that the war is just, and that the enemy deserves to die. In this vein the Vikings prohibit any peaceful contact with the dragons, and teach the children from and early age, using only <a href="http://howtotrainyourdragon.wikia.com/wiki/Dragon_Manual">state-approved books</a>, that dragons are evil. <a href="http://howtotrainyourdragon.wikia.com/wiki/Hiccup_Horrendous_Haddock_III">Hiccup</a>’s father disowns him after learning that he is a “dragon-lover.”</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">The inhabitants of a state continuously at war become savage and brutal. Being taught to hate, and to not think critically, from an early age, creates several generations of people who have grown up not knowing freedom or peace. These people know only war, and have ceased even to have hate in their hearts. Worse than hating their enemies, they cease to feel anything for them. Killing becomes a sport, a fun past-time. Brutal and bloody games are invented as a coming-of-age ritual, to prove one’s bravery and courage. This kind of blood-thirst is <a href="http://lds.org/scriptures/bofm/moro/9.8-10?lang=eng#7">horrifically described</a> elsewhere.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
<strong><u>Americo-centric Bias</u></strong></div><div class="MsoNormal">The dragon society is built around America’s view of war. Americans see themselves as liberators. If we could only get rid of whatever evil tyrant who rules over this or that country, then we could live peacefully with them. Kill the big bad dragon, and they’ll <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3080244/ns/meet_the_press/">greet us as liberators</a>. Unfortunately, as wikileaks recently revealed, <a href="http://mwcnews.net/focus/politics/8025-dictatorship-in-tunisia.html">America often supports dictators</a>, until it becomes politically convenient to assassinate or overthrow them.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiuhG1mQhFsZIikcvN86i4VtF-CSaGENLyRM7-3x1-hglIjUHGzIr8VrH4x9vXhzAzUrUL1dLf3RsdcQhyphenhyphenpC1z-qmIZtcSXoySzieqsox1ZZs5nm_UeprGFbqsHaS87JJCub1e6V2l-Qa0/s1600/dragon+copy.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="247" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiuhG1mQhFsZIikcvN86i4VtF-CSaGENLyRM7-3x1-hglIjUHGzIr8VrH4x9vXhzAzUrUL1dLf3RsdcQhyphenhyphenpC1z-qmIZtcSXoySzieqsox1ZZs5nm_UeprGFbqsHaS87JJCub1e6V2l-Qa0/s400/dragon+copy.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br />
<strong><u>Peace and Prosperity</u></strong></div><div class="MsoNormal">Once the big bad dragon is killed, the societies do mesh together, and correctly show the benefits that peaceful trade has over war. During wartime, the ruling class of Vikings was able to command an extreme amount of power, and the dragons got to steal the Vikings' fish and sheep. But during a time of peace, the Vikings were able to trade their surplus food for the services of flight and fire that the dragons had to offer. Peace fosters prosperity, and a free-market provides huge incentives to avoid war. Genius and economist Ludwig von Mises put it simply:</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">“If the tailor goes to war against the baker, he must henceforth produce his bread for himself.” (<i><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Human-Action-Pocket-Ludwig-Mises/dp/1610161459?ie=UTF8&tag=west.christopher.lynn&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">Human Action</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=west.christopher.lynn&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=1610161459" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; margin: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px !important; padding-left: 0px !important; padding-right: 0px !important; padding-top: 0px !important;" width="1" /><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=west.christopher.lynn&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=0865976317" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; margin: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px !important; padding-left: 0px !important; padding-right: 0px !important; padding-top: 0px !important;" width="1" /></i><span style="font-style: normal;"> p. 828).</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">The dragons, for example, were unable to raise sheep or fish for themselves. By cutting themselves off from this trade, they had to make desperate attacks on the Vikings or else risk starvation. Similarly, the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was a desperate attempt to secure a supply of gasoline, which they were unable to produce domestically. Gas had been available during peacetime, but was cut off because of the war.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Both societies benefited more from peace, though the ruling elites benefited far more during war (for example: Viking leaders got to dictate every phase of a Viking's life, and the king dragon got to eat for free.) For this reason, the ruling class has to convince the masses that war is in fact for their benefit, though those who prosper are generally a few politically-connected businessmen and politicians (think<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military-industrial_complex"> military-industrial complex</a>, the guys who make Viking swords and catapults). The propaganda that war is good for the economy has been ingrained so well through our public education system (which teaches that WWII got us out of the great depression), that most Americans believe it. This falsehood is easily disarmed again by Mises:</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://cdn.sheknows.com/articles/2010/10/dragon-still.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="122" src="http://cdn.sheknows.com/articles/2010/10/dragon-still.jpg" width="200" /></a></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">“War can really cause no economic boom, at least not directly, since an increase in wealth never does result from destruction of goods.” (<i>Nation, State, and Economy</i><span style="font-style: normal;">, p. 154)</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">This movie realistically illustrates that the <a href="http://lamar.colostate.edu/~grjan/hayeknaziism.html">war state is diametrically opposed to freedom. </a>Offensive, imperial wars necessitate massive amounts of lives and money, which are only available if a sovereign can coerce vast amounts of money from his subjects. And if that is possible, freedom has already gone by the wayside. For a free people will quickly end a war if they see it cutting too sharply into their liberties (economic and political). People in bondage to a tyrant do not have the freedom to end war. Their money is taken regardless of their protestations. And if conscripts toss their weapons to the ground and refuse to fight, they are shot. Or eaten, in the case of dragons.</div>Mr. Christopherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13553466109570555839noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4151602119574383586.post-14055171482823624452011-04-23T13:34:00.000-07:002011-07-07T20:55:51.901-07:00Ghostbusters: How the Government Destroys Entrepreneurship<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Ghostbusters-Double-Feature-Gift-Commemorative/dp/B0009RCPY8?ie=UTF8&tag=west.christopher.lynn&link_code=bil&camp=213689&creative=392969" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" target="_blank"><img alt="Ghostbusters Double Feature Gift Set (Ghostbusters/ Ghostbusters 2 and Commemorative Book)" src="http://ws.amazon.com/widgets/q?MarketPlace=US&ServiceVersion=20070822&ID=AsinImage&WS=1&Format=_SL160_&ASIN=B0009RCPY8&tag=west.christopher.lynn" /></a>I just watched <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Ghostbusters-Double-Feature-Gift-Commemorative/dp/B0009RCPY8?ie=UTF8&tag=west.christopher.lynn&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">Ghostbusters</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=west.christopher.lynn&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=B0009RCPY8" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; margin: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px !important; padding-left: 0px !important; padding-right: 0px !important; padding-top: 0px !important;" width="1" /> again, and man, that movie has aged well. The script (co-written by Dan Akroyd) was full of clever dialogue. The acting was great, Bill Murray is always at the top of his game. Has that guy ever been in a bad movie?<br />
<img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=west.christopher.lynn&l=bil&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=B0009RCPY8" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; margin: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px !important; padding-left: 0px !important; padding-right: 0px !important; padding-top: 0px !important;" width="1" /><br />
I loved it even more now that I'm an <a href="http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism">anarcho-capitalist</a>. The movie pits struggling entrepreneurs (the Ghostbusters) against a meddling and incompetent government (the EPA).<br />
<br />
Dan Akroyd (Stantz) and Bill Murray (Venkman) have a discussion in the beginning, when they decide to go into business for themselves:<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 2px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 2px; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;"></span><br />
<pre><div style="text-align: center;">VENKMAN</div>You're always so worried about your
reputation. We don't need the University.
Einstein did his best stuff while he was
working as a patent clerk.'They can't stop
progress.
STANTZ
(not cheered)
Do you know what a patent clerk makes? I
liked the University. They gave us money,
they gave us the facilities<b> and we didn't
have to produce anything! I've worked in
the private sector. They expect results.</b>
You've never been out of college. You don't
know what it's like out there.
VENKMAN
(with visionary zeal)
Let me tell you, Ray, everything in life
happens for a reason. Call it fate, call
it luck, Karma, whatever. I think we were
destined to get kicked out of there.
STANTZ
For what purpose?
VENKMAN
(with real conviction)
To go into business for ourselves.</pre><br />
<br />
(emphasis added)<br />
<br />
This conversation could just as easily been about government jobs vs. private sector jobs. It takes tremendous effort, risk, and sacrifice to go into business for yourself. Akroyd's character has to take a third mortgage on his house to get the business up and running.<br />
<br />
Business picks up as they start busting ghost heads, until all hell breaks loose. But it's not ghosts that are the problem, it's the government.<br />
<br />
An power-mad EPA inspector Walter Peck (played by William Atherton) comes to shut down the ghost storage grid. The first encounter goes like this:<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 2px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 2px; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;"></span><br />
<pre><div style="text-align: center;">PECK</div>May I please see the storage facility?
VENKMAN
Why do you want to see it?
PECK
Well, because I'm curious. I want to know
more about what you do here. Frankly, there
have been <b>a lot of wild stories in the media
and we want to assess any possible
environmental impact from your operation.
For instance, the storage of noxious,
possibly hazardous waste materials in your
basement.</b> Now either you show me what's down
there or I come back with a court order.
VENKMAN
(he's had it)
<b>Go ahead! Get a court order. Then I'm
gonna sue your ass off for wrongful
prosecution.</b>
PECK
(exiting)
Have it your way, Mr. Venkman.
VENKMAN
(shouts after him)
Hey! Make yourself useful! Go save a tree!</pre><br />
(emphasis added)<br />
<br />
Venkman's threat to sue Peck is an idle one. Because the government has a monopoly over the court system, it is nearly impossible to successfully prosecute them. <br />
<br />
Peck returns with a police officer, and threatens to have the secretary arrested for "interfering with a police officer." He orders the storage grid to be shut off:<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 2px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 2px; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;"></span><br />
<pre><div style="text-align: center;">VENKMAN</div>If you turn that thing off we won't be
responsible for the consequences.
PECK
On the contrary! You will be held
completely responsible.</pre><pre></pre><br />
This is typical. The government interferes with a private enterprise, and then blames that enterprise when their own actions cause the disaster.<br />
<br />
This power trip may sound fantastic. But you must remember, <a href="http://mises.org/daily/3307/Nixon">Nixon established the EPA</a>. There's obviously something sketchy about them. And here are some real-life examples of the EPA gone wild:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.lewrockwell.com/spl2/epa-monster.html">The EPA ignores science</a><br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/goog_1669089026">The EPA </a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 5px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 5px; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times, serif;"><a href="http://www.lewrockwell.com/caruba/caruba17.1.html">wants the authority "to shut down every kind of industrial activity or construction project nationwide.</a>"</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 5px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 5px; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times, serif;"><a href="http://mises.org/daily/1269">The EPA is responsible for the Challenger disaster</a>.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 5px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 5px; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times, serif;"><a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/02/01/spilled_milk_108727.html">The EPA regulated milk and dairy products, because they contain "oil</a>" (natural fats, not exxon stuff).</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 5px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 5px; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times, serif;"><a href="http://www.surfingmagazine.com/news/clark-foam-120505/">The EPA destroys a small American surfboard business</a> (a must read)</span><br />
<br />
So the EPA releases hell on earth, and the Ghostbusters go to prison. They then have to beg the mayor of New York to "allow" them to do their jobs.<br />
<br />
It was great to see a realistic depiction of government meddling in the movies. Entrepreneurs are the real heroes. Government just gets in the way. If the Ghostbusters had simply been left alone, the ghost apocalypse would not have happened.<br />
<br />
It would be safe to assume that the zombie apocalypse will come about through government intervention.Mr. Christopherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13553466109570555839noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4151602119574383586.post-55024294332289242652011-04-19T22:35:00.000-07:002011-07-07T20:54:50.848-07:00A-Team: Money Monopoly and Counterfeit<div class="MsoNormal"></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=west.christopher.lynn&l=bil&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=B002ZG994U" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; margin: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px !important; padding-left: 0px !important; padding-right: 0px !important; padding-top: 0px !important;" width="1" />The plot of the <a href="http://www.amazon.com/-Team-Liam-Neeson/dp/B002ZG994U?ie=UTF8&tag=west.christopher.lynn&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">A-Team</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=west.christopher.lynn&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=B002ZG994U" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; margin: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px !important; padding-left: 0px !important; padding-right: 0px !important; padding-top: 0px !important;" width="1" /> movie inspired this essay. It revolves around some bad guys who have stolen a dollar printing press. For this crime, Mr. T abandons his pacifist tendencies and starts killing fools.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><a href="http://www.amazon.com/-Team-Liam-Neeson/dp/B002ZG994U?ie=UTF8&tag=west.christopher.lynn&link_code=bil&camp=213689&creative=392969" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" target="_blank"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><img alt="The A-Team" src="http://ws.amazon.com/widgets/q?MarketPlace=US&ServiceVersion=20070822&ID=AsinImage&WS=1&Format=_SL160_&ASIN=B002ZG994U&tag=west.christopher.lynn" /></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">But what’s wrong with printing money? How does the manufacture of money differ from the manufacture of other goods? What is the effect of a monopoly of the money supply?</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">Money is the unit by which the value of all other goods is measured. It is the common denominator. You can imagine the chaos that would ensue if our units of measurement were arbitrarily altered on a daily basis. Imagine an inch, for example, about the length of your thumb today, the length of your body tomorrow, and the next day the length of a football field. It would be impossible for an architect to communicate to the builder just how big a house should be. It would be impossible to safely build or engineer anything. In fact, measurement differences between the U.S. and European standards have caused <a href="http://articles.cnn.com/1999-09-30/tech/9909_30_mars.metric_1_mars-orbiter-climate-orbiter-spacecraft-team?_s=PM:TECH">multi-million dollar rockets to violently crash</a> or to hurtle off course into the emptiness of space.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">Because money is the basic unit of economic measurement, its stability is important, otherwise all entrepreneurial planning and business building would be impossible at best, and destructive at worst.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">How do you keep money stable? We all know that a dollar is worth 100 cents, but how do we make sure no one meddles with its worth?</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">The value of the dollar is measured in its <b>purchasing power</b><span style="font-weight: normal;">, or how much you can buy with it. You’re used to hearing old people say they used to buy a loaf of bread for a nickel, whereas now it costs us several dollars. By that measure, we know that the purchasing power of the dollar has gone down since their time. How did this happen?</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"> The value of anything is determined by <b>supply and demand</b><span style="font-weight: normal;">, i.e., how much of it there is (supply), and how much we want it (demand).</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">On the <b>supply</b><span style="font-weight: normal;"> side, the purchasing power of money can increase if—</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">1. the amount of goods <i>increases</i><span style="font-style: normal;">.</span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-style: normal;">or</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">2. the amount of money <i>decreases</i><span style="font-style: normal;">.</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">The amount of goods increased rapidly in the 19<sup>th</sup> and 20<sup>th</sup> centuries, thanks to the entrepreneurial endeavors of heroic capitalists such as Vanderbilt, Carnegie, and Ford, who invented ways of mass producing goods that, once the luxuries of the rich, soon became the necessities of the masses.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">This mass production of goods caused the value of the dollar to <i>increase </i><span style="font-style: normal;">in value by nearly 50% from 1800 to 1912. So a dollar saved in 1800 would buy $1.50 worth of goods 100 years later. But from 1913 until now, the dollar has </span><i>decreased</i><span style="font-style: normal;"> in value by about 95%, meaning that a dollar saved in 1913 would buy a nickel’s worth of goods today.</span></span></div><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://mises.org/images/SeanMaloneRiseFallDollarMedium.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><img border="0" height="276" src="http://mises.org/images/SeanMaloneRiseFallDollarMedium.jpg" width="640" /></span></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">Chart by <a href="http://blog.mises.org/10553/the-rise-and-fall-of-the-dollar-1800-2009/">Sean Malone</a></span></td></tr>
</tbody></table><div class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">What changed in 1913?</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">In 1913, the U.S. federal government granted a monopoly of money production to a private corporation, called the Federal Reserve, a cartel formed by several wealthy bankers. It gave them sole power over the manufacture of dollars and outlawed all competing currencies. In the 1930s, it even outlawed the ownership of gold.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">Why outlaw gold?</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">Gold is the greatest threat to a monopolized paper currency. It has been used as money for thousands of years. Unlike paper, gold is rare. It is therefore difficult to manipulate its value for political gain. It is also very difficult to counterfeit, being an element with easily discernable characteristics.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">What’s wrong with counterfeiting? When gold and silver were money, counterfeiters would use other, more abundant metals as coins, and pass them off as gold and silver. This is the equivalent of using sand instead of flour to bake a loaf of bread. A merchant who received this counterfeit money would exchange, say, a perfectly good loaf of bread, for a piece of garbage. Imagine selling your TV on ebay, and getting monopoly money instead of dollars. Counterfeiting is a deceptive form of theft. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">But in the case of the A-Team, the bad guys had an actual press, the same exact machine that the Federal Reserve uses. This would be the equivalent of someone stealing a bread machine, and manufacturing perfectly good bread. This “counterfeit” bread would be the same exact good to the consumer. So we see that counterfeiting, as currently defined by the U.S. Treasury, does not mean what kind of dollars are manufactured, but <i>who</i><span style="font-style: normal;"> does the manufacturing.</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">All men desire the mighty hand of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midas">Midas</a>, the power to create wealth out of nothing. Is this not sufficient reason to place the power to print money into the hands of the government? To protect the money supply from manipulation?</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">Why is it harmful for someone other than the Federal Reserve to manufacture dollars? As we’ve seen, increasing the supply of dollars decreases their purchasing power. But that also happens when the Federal Reserve manufactures dollars.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">The only discernable difference between legal and illegal money production is <i>who </i><span style="font-style: normal;">does it. In other words, money production is a state-enforced cartel/monopoly.</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">A monopoly in money production may sound safe and reasonable. Rogue money producers could tamper with the value of the dollar. On the other hand, if the monopoly itself is mass-producing dollars, there is not an optional, competing currency to use to preserve the purchasing power of your hard-earned wealth.<br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">Preserving purchasing power is important for people who want to save their money. For those who are saving to buy something expensive, like a house, business, or wedding ring—and especially for people saving for retirement—stable purchasing power is of the utmost importance.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">The Federal Reserve has abused its money production monopoly. As we’ve seen, from 1913 (when the Federal Reserve was established) until now, the purchasing power of the dollar has exponentially decreased. Our saved dollars are secretly leeched away, just as if a thief had ATM access to your account, which brings us back to the <b>demand</b><span style="font-weight: normal;"> side of money.</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">This unsafe savings environment, in which your dollars continuously lose purchasing power, makes people want to spend dollars as fast as they can get them, because their dollars will purchase more now than they will a year from now. For this reason, inflation (the increase of the money supply) boosts consumption and punishes savings.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">Just as you have to produce a loaf of bread before you can consume it, the inflationary practices of the Federal Reserve are causing us to consume our wealth faster than we can produce it, so that we are consuming ourselves into poverty, becoming poorer year by year. It’s the same as eating not only wheat set aside for bread, but the seeds that were meant for next years crop, making future harvests smaller and smaller.</span></div><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjky2Jtf4icRkiOtSgct_Jd7a_S7UnoYbyaSP7fg8gX7m1hwU7HnCTIvvTXGYlL8TVq1nvza7Ual3bIMI_vCxNYxk6mmE7XI3OdqBPt3E0gskGsa_deM7MZUB-9sHQOrbbzv9_larK7oRM/s1600/Mr+T+suit.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjky2Jtf4icRkiOtSgct_Jd7a_S7UnoYbyaSP7fg8gX7m1hwU7HnCTIvvTXGYlL8TVq1nvza7Ual3bIMI_vCxNYxk6mmE7XI3OdqBPt3E0gskGsa_deM7MZUB-9sHQOrbbzv9_larK7oRM/s400/Mr+T+suit.jpg" width="292" /></span></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">I PITY THE FOOL who does not understand the economic implications of money production.</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table><div class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">Creating money does not create wealth. King Midas was a fable. Wealth is created by producing goods and services that people want. For this reason, it doesn’t matter how many dollars we have. We don’t need money producers. If we had only one dollar in the U.S. economy, we would divide it into millions of micro-cents, and do just fine, because the purchasing power of that dollar would be tremendous.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">We need to de-monopolize money production, and allow for free market competition in currencies. Some currencies would do better than others. Some would hyperinflate. Those that succeed would be those that prove to be a safe store of purchasing power. It is good to have lifeboats when sailing on the Titanic.</span></div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
There are several steps we could take. The most obvious one would be <a href="http://www.amazon.com/End-Fed-Ron-Paul/dp/0446549177?ie=UTF8&tag=west.christopher.lynn&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">abolishing the Federal Reserve</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=west.christopher.lynn&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=0446549177" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; margin: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px !important; padding-left: 0px !important; padding-right: 0px !important; padding-top: 0px !important;" width="1" />. We could also legalize <a href="http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul434.html">competing currencies,</a> which would accomplish the same thing, since the Fed has proved to be an unwise money manufacturer, and would not last a day in the free market.</span> <br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span><br />
<br />
For further reading, see:<br />
1. <em><a href="http://blog.mises.org/5325/a-team-stands-for-anarcho-capitalism/">The A-Team Stands For Anarcho-Capitalism</a></em> by <span class="author">Mateusz Machaj</span><br />
2. <i><a href="http://www.amazon.com/What-Has-Government-Done-Money/dp/1610161424?ie=UTF8&tag=west.christopher.lynn&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">What Has Government Done to Our Money?</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=west.christopher.lynn&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=1610161424" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; margin: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px !important; padding-left: 0px !important; padding-right: 0px !important; padding-top: 0px !important;" width="1" /></i> by Murray N. Rothbard<br />
3. <i><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Ethics-Money-Production-Guido-H%C3%BClsmann/dp/1933550090?ie=UTF8&tag=west.christopher.lynn&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">The Ethics of Money Production</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=west.christopher.lynn&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=1933550090" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; margin: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px !important; padding-left: 0px !important; padding-right: 0px !important; padding-top: 0px !important;" width="1" /></i> by Jorg Guido HulsmannMr. Christopherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13553466109570555839noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4151602119574383586.post-67898119121793986792011-04-19T17:18:00.000-07:002011-07-07T20:55:09.380-07:00The Simpsons MovieThe Simpsons has excelled at caricaturing society in a way that made us all take a pensive look in the mirror. The bad guys in <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Simpsons-Movie-Widescreen-Dan-Castellaneta/dp/B000WGYMGK?ie=UTF8&tag=west.christopher.lynn&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">The Simpsons Movie</a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-color: initial !important; border-width: initial !important;"><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=west.christopher.lynn&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=B000WGYMGK" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important;" width="1" /></span> were mostly power-tripping/incompetent government officials, which makes it a great tool for spreading the idea of libertarianism.<br />
<br />
Check out <a href="http://blog.mises.org/6909/a-review-of-the-simpsons-movie/">S. M. Oliva's review of it</a> over at LewRockwell.com.Mr. Christopherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13553466109570555839noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4151602119574383586.post-40156869483232449862011-04-17T15:44:00.000-07:002011-07-07T20:55:24.620-07:00A Tangled interpretation of property rights<div class="MsoNormal"><i><iframe align="left" frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=west.christopher.lynn&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=B004G600A4&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr" style="align: left; height: 245px; padding-right: 10px; padding-top: 5px; width: 131px;"></iframe></i>The brief intro of <i><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Tangled-Mandy-Moore/dp/B004G600A4?ie=UTF8&tag=west.christopher.lynn&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">Tangled</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=west.christopher.lynn&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=B004G600A4" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; margin: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px !important; padding-left: 0px !important; padding-right: 0px !important; padding-top: 0px !important;" width="1" /></i><span style="font-style: normal;"> contained so many economic assumptions that I had to take a moment to untangle and discuss them. Scrutiny of such a simple event in a children’s story can help us reexamine the systems of power we take for granted in our complex, adult world</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><u><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhSVreVsjJo">Click here to see the intro</a>: </u></div><div class="MsoNormal">The movie makes the hag out to be a terrible person, but the king stole her flower! What right did he have to it? If it wasn't wrong for him to take her flower, why was it wrong for her to take his child?</div><div class="MsoNormal"></div><div class="MsoNormal"><strong><u>Property Rights</u></strong></div><div class="MsoNormal">The hag was the first to find the flower. The first to find unowned property has a legitimate claim of ownership. She had nearly 400 years to secure a title on the small piece of property that contained the flower. That she didn't is a sign that the kingdom had serious property-right issues. </div><div class="MsoNormal"></div><div class="MsoNormal">It could be, perhaps, that the king owned all the land, and the people were forced to live as permanent serfs and tenants, unable to purchase their freedom by becoming landowners. Such has been the case in our own history (in Soviet Russia and periods during the Middle Ages). Whatever the issue, it is doubtful that a person could not, in 400 years, amass the wealth necessary to purchase a square foot of land unless there were some arbitrary legal restrictions on property rights. In the light of the means she went through to secure her stolen property (the child), it is doubtful that she would act similarly with her legitimate property (the flower) unless the king denied her the right.</div><div class="MsoNormal"></div><div class="MsoNormal">But the flower was taken as if it was unowned property. <i>Tangled </i><span style="font-style: normal;">explains this away by preaching that wonderful things must be shared with everyone, and are therefore not subject to property rights. I will explore the implications of this flawed logic, and argue that the king had no rightful claim on the flower.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">What were the king’s claims to ownership?</div><div class="ListParagraph" style="margin-left: 0in;"><br />
</div><div class="ListParagraph" style="margin-left: 0in;"><b>Claim #1 — The flower belonged to the whole world, and no one person, because it was a free gift from the sun.</b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">First of all, all life, and almost all energy, is traceable to free energy given from the sun. All animals and fungus maintain their lives by consuming energy that originally came from the sun in the form of plants. All other inanimate matter existed before any human was born, and therefore was a free gift. The flower, which came from the sun, is no different in this way from any other property.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
<strong> Claim #2 — The flower should not have been hoarded by one person, because it was so unique and remarkable</strong></div><div class="MsoNormal">The flower’s uniqueness would definitely make it more valuable. Value is determined by A) how much people want it, and B) how much of it there is—</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">A) Both the king and the hag wanted the flower very much, meaning the king would pay a lot to get it, and the hag would require a huge payment to exchange it. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">B) The flower was also extremely rare, being the only one of its kind. Because there was no other alternative product, its price would be high. (For example: Diamonds, which are rare, are expensive. Air, which is superabundant, is cheap).</div><div class="MsoNormal">We have established that the flower would cost a lot on a free market. The king, being the owner of a castle, expensive jewelry, an army, and probably lots of real estate and perhaps some peasants, had plenty of possessions to barter with. You’ve heard the phrase “I’d give half my kingdom.” This king decided he’d be better off if he kept that half of his kingdom <i>and </i><span style="font-style: normal;">got the flower. A pretty sweet deal on his side of the equation, but you can see the hag was left holding the short end of the stick.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">The communistic idea that because something is precious, it should belong to everyone, is completely opposite to common sense, and destructive to society. Communal ownership of rare resources leads to the <a href="http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_Commons">tragedy-of-the-commons</a>, wherein everyone takes as much as they can before the next guy can. This tragedy of unclear property rights leads to disasters like overfishing and desertification (a recent example is Zimbabwe, which communized several large farm plots, which soon became barren wastes). </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">You’ve probably experienced this tragedy of unclear property rights yourself. Have you ever put a lunch into a communal fridge at work, only to find that some anonymous jerk has eaten it, or worse, just taken a bite? Your jerk coworker had difficulty understanding property rights. He assumed that because he was hungry, his need merited your delicious sandwich. Imagine once you put something in the fridge, it in fact belonged to everyone at the company. The fridge would be a free for all. People would dig through each other’s lunches looking for snacks and good stuff. Pretty quickly people would stop using the fridge altogether, and would turn to a “black-market” of storing their lunches under desks and behind the water cooler.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
The argument<strong>—</strong>that it is too precious to hoard<strong>—</strong>condemns, rather than justifies, the king. He acted just as selfishly as the hag. He took the flower and used it up, sharing it with no one outside of his family.</div><div class="MsoNormal">This “my need merits ownership” line of thinking leads us to the king’s next possible claim.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Claim #3 — The king’s need merited ownership.</b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">The king needed the flower badly. Hardly a sadder case could be presented. His wife and child would die without it. But does his need confer ownership?</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
The worth of something is determined by its supply (discussed above), and its demand. A higher need is reflected in a higher price. The king, if anyone, was most able to pay a high price for such a desired good.</div><div class="MsoNormal">Let's ignore this economic law, and pretend that need determines ownership. Let us spend a few minutes deciding on who needed the flower most, since the movie took such great pains chastising the hag for being a miser.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">The king’s family would have died without the flower, but the hag would also have died without it. We could venture upon the morbid and impossible task of calculating whose life was worth more, the royal family’s or the hag’s. An econometric comparison of marginal utilities would inevitably lead to the condemnation of the old woman, who already had five lifetimes under her belt. But comparisons of utility are actually impossible, though many economists waste a lot of time doing it.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Though it is impossible to compare the utility of the royal family with that of the hag, we are leaving out a vital part of the equation: the entire population of the rest of the world. To simplify, let’s talk about the kingdom.</div><div class="MsoNormal">Were there no other sick mothers in the kingdom? No other stillborns, who could have been saved had they been royalty? Surely the queen was not the first to face death in childbirth. Shouldn’t the flower have been divided equally among all sick mothers? </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">We all need to eat. But our need does not mean we get to consume the crop that a farmer toils all year to grow. We must trade with the farmer to obtain property rights for a portion of the food he has grown.</div><div class="MsoNormal">The hag was accused of being a miser. But we need to draw a line somewhere for property rights. Without them, the farmer wouldn't bother sowing, or the builder building. Society would crumble. There was not enough flower for everyone in the world. Some individual would end up being the final consumer, and therefore owner, of the flower.</div><div class="MsoNormal">Should it belong to the king or the hag? This question cannot be settled on the basis of need.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Claim #4 — The flower grew on the king’s land.</b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">If the flower grew on the king’s property, and the hag trespassed in order to use it, the king might have a case for ownership.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">But the cartoon depicts the flower growing <i>outside</i><span style="font-style: normal;"> of the kingdom, “hop skip and a boat-ride away” from it. If this isn’t an error, then the king sent an army to steal from a neighboring kingdom, which would make his claim completely illegitimate. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">For argument's sake, we’ll assume the boundaries of the kingdom probably extended beyond the city walls, and the king probably claimed to be the owner of everything within the borders of the kingdom, which would include the flower. It appeared that the flower grew on unused property in the middle of nowhere. That the flower was not discovered by anyone else for 400 years strengthens the argument that the land was abandoned and unused. It seems that the flower was up for grabs.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">But if the flower grew on land that the king had not improved, purchased, or fenced off as his own, it could not justly be called his, unless we also pretend that the lunatic who points at the stars and says, “<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Little-Prince-Antoine-Saint-Exup%C3%A9ry/dp/1607963183?ie=UTF8&tag=west.christopher.lynn&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">They are mine</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=west.christopher.lynn&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=1607963183" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important;" width="1" />,” has a legally binding claim. That the hag had not claimed the land as her own is evidence of a lack of property rights in general (as discussed above), and evidence that the king was more a tyrant than a ruler.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">The greed of men knows no bounds. While they may desire to own everything they lay their eyes on, like the conquistadors who claimed the Indian-inhabited continents of America in their entirety by planting a few flags and saying, “It is mine,” ownership is conferred only through trade, gifts, or homesteading. Because the earth existed before men, the whole earth was once unowned. All property that is now traded or gifted was originally possessed through homesteading.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">The king may claim to own a piece of land he has never seen or laid foot on, because, as king, he is both legislator, executor, and judge, so his word is law. But this is tyranny, a miscarriage of justice, law in name only. Any government that does not protect the lives, liberty, and property of the people has no divine sanction, is innately unjust and unnatural, and the people have every just right to overthrow it.</div><div class="MsoNormal">For this reason I do not make legal argument, because if the king makes the laws, he can change the legal rules. My argument stems from natural law, or God’s law. Not the way things are, but the way things ought to be in a just world.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">It appears that the king did not own the land. It is doubtful that a person could not, in 400 years, amass the wealth necessary to purchase a square foot of land unless there were some arbitrary legal restrictions on property rights. In either case, the king's claim was illegitimate by this standard.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Claim #5 — The king deserved the flower because he was good and the hag bad.</b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Rights are only meaningful if they protect all people, good and bad (though criminals can forfeit their rights, as punishment, if tried and convicted).</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">This is easily understood in the case of free speech. Laws that don’t protect undesirable speech are meaningless and powerless. It’s only objectionable speech that needs protection. No one minds unobjectionable speech.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">So, too, it is with property rights. During witch hunt hysteria (and in the current terrorist-hunt hysteria), a person can accuse his neighbor of being a witch, get that person killed under the authority of the law, and then easily take the dead neighbor's property. <br />
<br />
If an accusation of wickedness is all that is needed to legally plunder, property rights no longer exist. A criminal can have their property forfeited to compensate his victim, but generally accusations of greediness are not enough to forfeit property in a free society.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">If property rights are arbitrary, instead of absolute, it creates unpredictability in the market. No one wants to save, because savings may be stolen (It’s like the communal fridge at work: imagine that your bank account was that insecure). No savings mean no capital for investment, which means no business loans for entrepreneurs. No savings mean no safety net if a business or family encounters an unforeseen catastrophe. Society begins to crumble and spiral into a poverty-creating depression unless property rights are again established.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">The flower was stolen from the hag before she had committed any crime. Crimes cannot be punished before they are committed. It would be just to take the child back from the hag, and perhaps to punish her for the kidnapping. But it would be unjust to forcibly take the flower of an old hag who had not yet committed a crime.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">That the hag had to sneak around to get a cut of the child’s hair, and then resort to kidnapping, is strong evidence, not of the hag’s inherent wickedness, but of a lack of a court-system that could handle crimes involving the royal family. The hag obviously felt that there was no legal recourse for the theft committed upon her, so she took the law into her own hands.<br />
<br />
<strong><u>Summary</u></strong></div><div class="MsoNormal">It seems the king had no claim on the hag’s flower.</div><div class="MsoNormal">1. Its origin did not render him ownership.<br />
2. Its rareness did not render him ownership.</div><div class="MsoNormal">3. His need did not merit ownership.</div><div class="MsoNormal">4. He did not justly own the land it grew on.</div><div class="MsoNormal">5. The hag had not forfeited her right through criminal activity.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">It bears repeating, that if anyone could have afforded the flower, it would be a filthy rich king. But instead of buying it, he sent his armies to forcibly confiscate it. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">It may be argued that the king did not know that anyone owned the flower. But one does not become the ruler of a nation through naïveté. Even in a hereditary monarchy, the more cunning brother will often off his siblings in order to get to the throne.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Did the king truly think that the most valuable object on earth was unclaimed property, or did he, being above the law, think that his claim overruled all others? Were the soldiers too rushed to notice the ornate flowerbox tipped-over next to the flower, or were they just accustomed to covering up evidence of ownership when confiscating property from the citizenry? It seems Rapunzel’s boyfriend, a thief, found himself in good company when he joined the royal family.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">All of this hypothetical talk of cartoon kings applies directly to us. For if the government wants your house, it claims imminent domain, and takes it. If it wants the money in your bank account, it passes an unconstitutional amendment, and takes it; or, that not being enough, it steals it secretly by inflating the money supply through the mechanism of the <a href="http://www.amazon.com/End-Fed-Ron-Paul/dp/0446549177?ie=UTF8&tag=west.christopher.lynn&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">Federal Reserve</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=west.christopher.lynn&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=0446549177" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important;" width="1" />. The government, in other words, is that anonymous jerk at work who takes secret bites from your sandwich. This movie does not upset me because it portrays pretended injustices, but because it is a fitting metaphor for thefts suffered by people I know. Citizens are treated like peasants by politicians who consider themselves above the law. Disney’s <i>Tangled </i><span style="font-style: normal;">perpetuates a disrespect for property rights which must be fought if we are to preserves our society. </span></div>Mr. Christopherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13553466109570555839noreply@blogger.com0